It's Friday, so I guess this topic is fitting. It's science, not political, though.
Why was sex developed? Why didn't we just continue cloning ourselves?
Printable View
It's Friday, so I guess this topic is fitting. It's science, not political, though.
Why was sex developed? Why didn't we just continue cloning ourselves?
What would the world be like without lewd jokes?
I mean cloning jokes might catch up in time, but they'll never be as funny.
Because DNA-technonoligy is kinda new, and it's a whole lot of fun?
I think HoreTore is referring to cloning as bacteria and other single cell organisms do it while so-called higher life forms seem to have developed from that to sex.
I guess the answer is that cloning the entire human body just like that would:
a) use a whole lot of resources at once, or take a veeery long time while you have to run around with a half-finished clone attached to your body.
b) be very complicated, apparently cells can only duplicate themselves, not duplicate a different cell, so your brain cells would have to clone themselves(IIRC brain cells can't clone/renew themselves like other cells anyway) and then the cloned cell would have to get to the appropriate spot in the unfinished clone body.
Sex works around all this by just transferring required information into a single basic cell which then clones and transforms to build a new organism based on the basic information provided. The advantages are:
a) Only during the initial state does it require additional resources, afterwards the new organism can sustain itself (by eating), the weight is also kept to the minimum required until the new organism can carry its own weight.
b) the complexity is mostly handled by the new organism itself based on the given information. The previous body does not have to coordinate the buildup and placement, the new body does this by creating a small blueprint that then grows independently.
I would conclude sex is nature's way to handle the complexity of so-called advanced organisms.
except there are complex life forms which can reproduce asexually - if you think about it there is no reason the Human body couldn't reproduce asexually right now - all it needs is for the body to produce both sperm and eggs for self fertilization (quite a few species of plant actually do this)Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
the answer is actually considerable more complicated - it is about Genetic Variance and how sexual reproduction produces offspring with far greater genetic variance which allows for far more mutations which in turn allows a species to adapt more successfully to changes in environment
Why does sex exist?
Evolution baby!
If I'm a successful male and you're a successful female we can merge our genetic code and get the good qualities of both of us.
If you're cloning yourself, you're just making more copies of yourself and the only change could come from mutation. It's a lot slower of a process and we'd be a lot less adaptable.
This is the worst sex thread ever. ~;)
How is a babby formed?
Nah, evolution also occurs in asexual species. (You just reduce genetic drift, and a couple of related phenomena, but nothing so drastic that you need to invent a Y-chromosome and give half the species an inability to birth.) The more proximate cause?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Looks like all of that bumping and grinding is due to ...
... parasites.
We were able to conduct a controlled test showing that exposure to coevolving parasites led to extinction of populations that could only self-fertilize, while populations that could have sex were able to survive and even adapt to the coevolving parasites. [...] we were also able to show that self-fertilization was favored by natural selection when no parasites were present and when parasites were present but not coevolving with the hosts. So, we were able to isolate coevolving parasites as a factor that maintain high levels of sex in populations that can either have sex or self-fertilize.
No, you're wrong. If you have an egg and a sperm, you're still not cloning anything, it's just a more boring version of sex for species that do not need the additional motivation. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Yes, I wanted to include genetic diversity and then I forgot about it over trying to make it sound as much like an engineering topic as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
a species that reproduces asexually will have a lower genetic diversity than one that reproduces through sex.
when situations get tough from a survival standpoint, the population with a higher generic variability will have a better chance of surviving.
Sex, much like Mitt Romney, is the Great Job Creator.
The answer is 69.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Yeah. I am on to him he wants to transcend the human race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I linked to the most current research on the subject, don't really know why it's being ignored.
Y'all should get on your knees and thank ringworms and malaria plasmodia for spanky sextime. 'Cause it sure looks like the energy and population division brought about by sex simply would not be worth it if it weren't for the hangers-on.
This is the greatest and most valid anti-scientific argument ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
That is not an explanation for sex as we, humans, know it. That's an explanation for sexual reproduction (pollen, flowers, etc.), but not "spanky sextime". The explanation for "spanky sextime" is efficiency: it's vastly more efficient to inseminate directly than leave things to chance...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Yeah, the reason I posted this is because of reading such an explanation. And I can accept that explanation just fine, it makes sense. I do have a problem with it, however, which I'm hoping for help to understand:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
If sex gives an advantage over parasites, how has the species who clone themselves(fish, plants) survived? Why haven't they gone extinct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Just because sex has an advantage doesn't mean all non-sexytime species should be extinct. You are dealing with absolutes, which is not necessary in this case. Plus, Sexytime mammals have no need to compete with fishies and plants that clone themselves.
What kind of fish clone themselves? All the fish I am aware of use insemination of eggs, even if it's outside the body.
Duh. The Clonefish. You need to get out of the house, broQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Every organism has a reason for existing, ie. they have beaten extinction somehow. I'm wondering what the organisms who reproduce through cloning has done to avoid extinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
A specie of Stickleback is given as an example in the book I'm reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Extinction is what happens when a species cannot adapt to changing conditions quickly enough to survive. This means there is more than one way to avoid it, and paradoxically the most common one is to not be confronted with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
HEY SPEAKING OF PARASITES AND SEX, HAVE I TOLD YOU ABOUT MY EX WIFE????
....And what I'm interested in is what those other ways are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
How has a fish survived contact with parasites(who are practically everywhere in the water) without developing genders, which is the way almost every other non-microscopic organism has dealt with them?
And why did almost every other specie on the planet choose sex instead of whatever other option there is to combat parasites?
Despite all its advantages, sexual reproduction has one obvious disadvantage: it adds an internal evolutionary process, sexual selection. It's no longer good enough to be fit and clever; to adapt well to the environment. You also have to seek out another specimen of the opposite sex and successfully reproduce with it; typically involving a screening process where specimens may reject one another as mating partners; were some (or many) specimens might not get to reproduce at all.
It'll probably make the species more vulnerable to environmental change as the concept of what makes an attractive mate has to readjust to the new reality (through natural selection, of course).
But apparently the advantages to sexual reproduction are too big for this to matter.
No, plenty of plants and animals reproduce sexually without sexual selection in that sense (think grasses, corals, etc.). Sexual selection occurs with direct insemination, and direct insemination is such a major improvement in efficiency that it is worth the hassle of sexual selection. Additionally direct insemination is also by far the best bet for sexual reproduction in arid regions because it compensates for the primary drawbacks of sexual selection (the risks from exposure to a hostile environment for eggs and sperm).Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
As far as numbers are concerned asexual beats out ;) sexual reproduction
Frequency is one of the factors. Bacteria from a human point of view are constantly dividing. Sure each event has a smaller drift than sexual reproduction. But they divide so many times in a short period of time it adds up.
Species that can both sexually and asexually populate based on how rapidly the environment is changing. Essentially they clone in a stable environment and sexually reproduce in an unstable one.
True, but there is still sexual selection in terms of efficiency in e.g. pollination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
As I understood it, sex gives a controlled mutation, and also better mutations more often.
If we talk about penetrative sex, it was a advantage to be able to take care of the fosters inside the body, so they are less shark food when they get born.
And as a sidenote: Sex exist because it's DAMN fun. I don't think the first fish who penetrated anther fish ever went back to the alternative..
The first female fish to be penetrated must have been in for quite a shock though.
Fish can change sex. Keep that in your mind the next time you are chatting up a husky woman.
Humans can change sex, too. See? We are still evolvingQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Sex for pleasure are pretty much only apes doing it. It's more of an obsession rather than pleasure and love for most other species. Dogs for example, the swelling afterwards makes it equvalent that the girl grabs your dick and drags you around with it for quite a while after. You're stuck in an ankward position as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
And for cats, it's more horny teenager x5, for the males at least. The females also change behavior, but I haven't had females cats so I'm not sure if it unpleasant or not for the cat.
Then you got the number of species that rapes, some of them with intentional mutiliation.
And another for you Kadagar, a male ski instructor has to be a very exiting profession in the world of intelligent spiders. Or the mantis (risk for midsex decapitation).
For apes, it appears to have much to do with bonding, either a pair or as a group.
I do believe dolphins are doing it regularly for pleasure, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
If you don't think cats do it for pleasure, you have never been around adolescent female cats who are not fixed. Once they find a human male they like, they will sexually assault his hand which is not unlike "getting slimed" from ghostbusters. And they purr the whole time. Unlike my ex wife.
Another reason to hate cats...
Sex is over rated. There are now better ways to procreate being tested and developed. Sex is more trouble than it is worth; a tool to conquer or a way to become emotionally closer to someone. I'm over it at this point.
I feel like it is a vestige from a time when people had no electricity and couldn't play BF3 all night long. Also, when there was no porn hub.
Either way, some are still horndogs, others are begining to recognize that it is a waste of a half hour when you could be streaming Netflix. For me it is like getting blackout drunk: something I did in highschool and college, but can't find a point to anymore.
In marriage it is like royal court, still necessary to keep the kingdom together, but nobody takes the pomp and circumstance seriously like they did in the middle ages.
Possibly correct.
But a disinterest in sex may be indicative of health problems ie lack of sleep, exercise or early stages of a disease or general unhappiness.
Dogs when they are about to die will wander off to die alone. Humans often disengage from sex instead.
Sex is higher up the motivational pyramid. Breathing, eating, exercise and many other parts need to be satisfied first.
Exercise is not really high up in my motivational pyramid. Not that I'm proud of that but I pretty much have to force myself to do it... The same cannot be said about breathing or eating... or sex, although I've never had sex yet... but the "motivation" is there
The motivation pyramid is a foundation up point of view. Unless all your more immediate needs are addressed motivations higher up the pyramid get ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
When fighting for your life you won't think about cake.
When dehydrated your desire to find over the next sand dune is not bikini clad babes it is water.
Sex will only be a motivation if lower level requirements have been meet. So if you are worrying about shelter (mortgage) or your diet is crap you will not feel like something higher in the pyramid.
I understand what you mean I'm just not sure about the placement of exercise in the pyramid... unless by exercise you mean something drastically different than what I'm thinking about. But you are definitely right about the motivation pyramid in general. So your point is, that if someone doesn't want to have sex there's a lack in one of the areas further down in the pyramid?
Yes, if they seem fit and healthy something else is the cause ie stress, disease etc
So if your libido drops it might be indicative of something quite serious as it is an early warning sign of something more serious.
I do have serious chronic health issues. But, to be honest, it is quite liberating to not need sex. I do whatever I can to keep my relationship intimate in non sexual ways, with the occasional. Other than that, my other hobbies haven't been affected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Don't buy the crap about sex being a need. Intimacy may be a need, but sex is absolutely pointless and a vestige of the past. It is sold as new and exciting, but it couldn't be anything further from that. Is it better than doing the dishes? Yes. But I'll take pornhub over sex for the physical requirement any day. Don't have sex unless you want to get artificially attached to someone, get them pregnant, or catch an std.
What about people who are asexual? Or is asexuality a disease itself?
Asexuality doesn't affect the sex drive. It just seen as highly inconvenient like trying to please yourself to a picture of a slab of concrete.
Not from what I heard. What you describe sounds more like object sexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Like this:Quote:
Object sexuality or objectum sexuality, in German Objektophilie (OS), is a pronounced emotional and often romantic desire towards developing significant relationships with particular inanimate objects. Those individuals with this expressed preference may feel strong feelings of attraction, love, and commitment to certain items or structures of their fixation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0S642NtHtE
Asexuality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality
Quote:
Asexuality (or nonsexuality) is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone or low or absent interest in sexual activity.
[...]
Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy, which are behavioral and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal or religious beliefs; sexual orientation, unlike sexual behavior, is believed to be "enduring". Some asexual people do engage in sexual activity despite lacking a desire for sex or sexual attraction, due to a variety of reasons, such as a desire to please romantic partners or a desire to have children.
... No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I was saying there is no sexual attraction. Unless you are saying you find pictures of concrete similar to your own visual stimulation. The point was the typical forum-reader who does experience sexual arousal at certain things, and I picked something they would with 99.99% certainty, not experience such with, and thus they might understand the issue.
Let me rephrase what I meant. You're chewing viagra while working at the "hot girls gone wild nude bath" (how you got that job is another story). The downside is that you can't "enjoy the benefits" in any way for a week. When you finally get that moment it's gonna be pleassuable indeed, but it will contain way more desperation. More obsession than enjoying the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
So you're a "hump your leg for dominance and the dick gets stuck for while after, causing him to be dragged around by it" - dog person?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
Since they did have a article series about it recently in a major Swedish newspaper. That pornhub might cause difficulties to be sexually attracted to someones more normal girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever, due to oversaturation. Dropping the porn for a while should fix it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
No idea if it's your case (I'll assume not), but having intimate relationships without sex, but with an active sex drive is a bit unusual so I was reminded of it.
Nope, actually I hate dogs even more than cats :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
You said it doesn't affect the sex drive and my point was that it does affect the sex drive in that there is none or the sex drive is severely reduced regardless of what asexual people look at. I may have misunderstood your example though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
So do you like any animal at all? :bounce:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
The best animals are the ones that can transform into sandwiches.
I like them medium to well doneQuote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
What????????????????Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
There must be blood. You're ruining perfectly good meat.
I I... agree with HoreTore.:shame:
Savages, the lot of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
It had better be shoe-leather or I won't be touching it.
Meat in a sex thread? HmmQuote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
"pulls out a 20-feet pole, pokes with it a bit."
:eeeek:
I really wonder how many are surprised that this thread derailed pretty quickly...
For some its a new record before derailing .. Some just prematurely abort with a bang.
Ladies and gentlmen, welcome to the new dong thread.
Finally a backroom thread that seems worth following.
But yea, I really got worried about us all, when only on page 3 we moved from sex to food. What is the matter with the kids these days ???
Thanks, Papewaio, for your subtle effort to bring it back on track with post #62. :wink:
Well it's a double entendre with our most controversial Backroom topics thrown in abortion and guns. I do aim to please... pity my precision is so askew :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel
=][=
The DNA reason for sex has been well defined. The social benefits of it hasn't. For something that is used as the ultimate ink pot to sign our longest term contracts it is remarkable how coy society is about it generally.
Yes we have a lot of porn on the Internet. But the mechanics of a car is a lot different to the social cache of driving one.
With technology is sex dying out or are we seeing an environmental change were some will be so enraptured with technology that they fail to reproduce naturally only to have to relie on the same technology that distracted them to allow late life births.
Is tech preventing more Darwin awards?
With all the career women, nature may reward those women who remain fertile longer; pushing the average age of fertility for women up; perhaps age (for both genders), too. With all the contraceptives available in the Western world, an evolutionary push may focus on the desire to have children, with the reward for horniness being lower than it used to be.
Wouldn't that be great? But I wonder if award recipients parents are really that much into technology beyond what keeps their beer cold?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
http://www.ihaveabrainparasite.comQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I have to be honest, anyone who says the "meat has to be red" obviously does not know how to cook properly, especially if they say well-done = burnt/tough+rubbery. Unfortunately, bad cooks tend to make it burnt/rubbery, when people want well-done, they simply want the meat thoroughly cooked and not red. Though being honest, stick a steak on a George Foreman grill 10-15mins as it gets thoroughly cooked and still juicy at the same time.
I have been served "red" before, and what it basically is a quick fry on both sides and if they not even defrosted it properly, the middle is still frozen, definitely "Yummy!".
Anything from medium to well done I enjoy. I don't like it too 'red'. Sometimes I really want a well done steak (not burnt like some people think it is), others I want a medium or a medium well.
I wish I had a steak. This is why I hate talking about food. :sad:
It's that the meat is thoroughly cooked that we consider damaged/destroyed meat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Cooking meat, and especially the god-awful casserole-style, will be punishable by firing squad the instant I become dictator.
If it doesn't drip blood, it simply isn't food. You might as well get a hamburger.
Hmm, for some reason we just can't seem to keep it up.
... I mean on topic.
It's true, this topic has gone limp. Needs more dong.
Are you crazy?!? I've been sweaty and bothered since the OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Sex is the only thing that makes me put down the booze
Too much booze will only lead to poor performance. Which given your criteria would be a death spiral.
Though on the bright side, too much booze also means you won't remember it anyway....Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio